College and Research Libraries The Censorship Phenomenon in College and Research Libraries: An Investigation of the Canadian Prairie Provinces, 1980-1985 Alvin M. Schrader, Margaret Herring, and Catriona de Scossa Although college and research libraries in North America are generally thought to be immune to censor- ship pressures, no impartial research has been undertaken to date to verify this perception. A five-page questionnaire was mailed to the libraries of 68 postsecondary educational institutions in the three prairie provinces of Canada in order to determine two things: first, the extent of pressures to remove, relocate, or reclassify library materials between 1980 and 1985; and second, to determine the effectiveness of written selection policies in dealing with such pressures. Among the 47 responding libraries, 14 (30 percent) re- ported that they had experienced some kind of censorship pressure during the six years under study. Al- most all of these libraries served student populations under 5,000, but some of the larger institutions also reported challenges of one kind or another. ollege and research libraries are generally thought to be im- mune to censorship pressures. For example, John Robotham and Gerald Shields (1981) asserted that ''the libraries of educational institutions are generally free from public pressure to acquire or reject a particular item. There is, of course, a kind of general pressure on them to adapt to a changing society, but this doesn't apply to any one book or film. " 1 The lack of concern with censor- ship at postsecondary institutions is no- where better revealed than in Library Liter- ature itself: between 1980 and June 1988, we found only two articles dealing with this topic. This state of affairs is somewhat under- standable, given the mandate of institu- tions of higher learning generally. Col- leges and universities are perceived as forums for the free exchange of ideas, dif- fering from public schools which are, among other things, agents of socializa- tion. To conduct research and produce le- gitimate scholarship at the postsecondary level, it is widely recognized that students and faculty alike must have access to all sides of an issue, no matter how contro- versial the subject matter. Presumably, college and research libraries are included in the intellectual mandate of their parent institutions. But just how justified is this presump- tion? Are there no restraints on intellec- tual freedom, no pressures at all on these Alvin M. Schrader is Associate Professor, Faculty of Library and Information Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2]4. Margaret Herring is Librarian/Cataloguer for the Calgary Board of Educa- tion, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2G 3CS. Catriona de Scossa is Associate Professor, Faculty of Library and Infor- mation Studies, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2/4. The authors thank Dr. Dianne Hopkins, Assistant Profes- sor of Library and Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, for critiquing a draft of this paper. 420 libraries to remove materials or to restrict access to them? The literature provides no clues. METHODOLOGY The questionnaire survey reported here is the first known effort to collect impartial empirical evidence about these questions from postsecondary libraries. (Although two or three statewide investigations in the recent past have included academic li- braries along with public and school li- braries, they did not distinguish the cen- sorial incidents by type of library.) In addition, this study has attempted to pro- vide a more complete and accurate picture of the link between possible censorship pressures and the effectiveness of stan- dard written procedures and selection policies to deal with any such pressures. 2 This investigation was limited to the li- braries of postsecondary institutions situ- ated in the Canadian provinces of Mani- toba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and covered the six years from 1980 to 1985. It was designed to elicit specific information regarding each request to remove, relo- cate, or reclassify materials. The informa- tion solicited included the title and format of the material involved; the type of indi- vidual initiating the complaint; the reason given by the individual for the complaint; the role of a written selection policy in dealing with the complaint; and the final disposition in each case. A number of important decisions had to be made at the outset of the research proj- ect. The first of these concerned the geo- graphic and time parameters of the sur- vey. College and research libraries in the three prairie provinces of Canada were se- lected for two reasons: first, a study sam- ple of adequate size would be assured; second, the Canadian prairie provinces constitute a fairly distinct regional entity. Although different in several respects, they share a number of similar characteris- tics, including cultural history, educa- tional practices, economic and industrial objectives, populist political behavior, and religious movements. The study pe- riod, 1980 to 1985, was chosen in order to be able to produce a comprehensive pic- ture without too much risk of inaccuracy Censorship Phenomenom 421 due to destroyed records or unreliable memories. The second major decision concerned the type of instrument that would be used to gather information. It was decided that a mail questionnaire would be most ap- propriate for several reasons. First, the ge- ographical scope of the study made face- to-face interviews virtually impossible; the time, travel, and expense that would be involved ruled this choice out immedi- ately. The mail questionnaire, on the other hand, is a relatively quick and inexpensive method for the researcher to gather data. The respondent can answer the questions conveniently and in privacy. Conse- quently, answers may be more candid than if the respondent were confronted with an interviewer face-to-face. However, mail questionnaires do notal- low the researcher to control the condi- tions under which the questionnaires are completed or to probe deeply into the re- spondents' actions and attitudes. Further- more, mail surveys often suffer from low response rates. These limitations may ren- der the information collected somewhat less reliable. When all aspects were taken into account, it was decided that a ques- tionnaire was still the instrument of choice for this research project. The survey included all English- speaking university libraries, community and technical college libraries, and the li- braries of religious, biblical, theological, and seminary postsecondary institutions in the three prairie provinces. At least one of these postsecondary institutions of- fered a mixed curriculum for both senior high school and college students. The second volume of the thirty-eighth edition of the American Library Directory (1985) was used to compile the list of li- braries to which the questionnaire would be sent. While the Directory classifies each library according to type (university, col- lege, public, special, religious, etc.), some discrepancies were noted. For example, the Southern Alberta Institute of Technol- ogy (SAlT) was classified as a college li- brary, while the Northern Alberta Insti- tute of Technology (NAIT) was classified as a special library. Every effort was made to detect these discrepancies, but the pos- 422 College & Research Libraries sibility nonetheless exists that some rele- vant libraries were missed. This Directory was supplemented by the Directory of Com- munity and Technical College Libraries and Resource Centres in Canada (1983), which in- cluded a number of libraries that had been omitted from the American Library Direc- tory. The final list comprised 68 libraries (one other library, initially included, was later found to be a high school library and therefore was omitted from the study fig- ures). Working from previously published re- search and research instruments, princi- pally related to public and school li- braries, 3' 4 the questionnaire and covering letter for the study were evaluated by two faculty members and two students in the Faculty of Library and Information Stud- ies, University of Alberta. As a result, sev- eral major revisions were incorporated into the second draft, which was reviewed again. Only minor modifications were suggested at this stage, and these were in- corporated into the third and final version of the questionnaire. Each of the covering letters was personalized with the name of the librarian or information officer in charge as well as the address of the library. A stamped, self-addressed return enve- lope was provided for each questionnaire. Questionnaires were mailed at the end of January 1986, with three weeks allowed for returns. There was no follow-up letter because of the project's time constraints and the additional expense that would be incurred. FINDINGS From the initial population of 68 li- braries, 47 usable questionnaires were re- July 1989 ceived. This represents a response rate of 69 percent, relatively high for a mail sur- vey of this type, and indicates widespread interest by prairie postsecondary educa- tional institutions in the issue of censor- ship. Most of the 44 responding libraries that provided enrollment data served populations of fewer than 5,000 students. The overall median per parent institution was 893 students, with a range from 70 to 23,000. ''Fourteen of the 47 respondents (30 percent) reported some kind of cen- sorship pressure between 1980 and 1985." Table 1 shows that 14 of the 47 respon- dents (30 percent) reported some kind of censorship pressure between 1980 and 1985. Overall, 79 percent of the affected li- braries served institutions with fewer than 5,000 students. Of these 14libraries, the majority expe- rienced multiple cases of censorship pres- sure, ranging as high as five incidents dur- ing the six-year period under study. (See table 2.) All told, these 14libraries reported 36 in- stances of censorial pressures. Most of the incidents involved requests to remove li- brary materials. One incident, however, was a case of suggested mutilation-are- quest that the offending matter be cut out. Another request involved pressure to not purchase material. For a full history of the 36 incidents, see appendix A. TABLE 1 FREQUENCY OF CENSORSHIP PRESSURES ON POSTSECONDARY LIBRARIES, 1980-1985 Libraries Number of No Yes Total Students (FI'E) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent UnderS,OOO 27 82 11 79 38 81 5,000-9,999 2 6 2 4 10,000-14,999 1 1 2 15,000-19,999 1 21 1 2 20,000-24,999 1 3 1 2 4 Unreported 3 9 3 7 Total 33 100 14 100 47 100 TABLE2 CENSORSHIP INCIDENTS PER POSTSECONDARY LffiRARY, 1980-1985 Censorship Incidents Libraries ~:erLibr~ Number Percent 1 3 21 2 4 29 3 4 29 4 2 14 5 1 7 Total 14 100 Table 3 shows the full range of censor- ship pressure on postsecondary libraries during the period under study. The ma- jority of the incidents (27 of 36, or 75 per- cent) occurred in libraries serving fewer than 5,000 students. Nonetheless, it should be stressed that several of the larger institutions also reported chal- lenges. And in statistical terms, this study demonstrates that the larger the student population, the more likely the library will experience censorship pressures. 5 Respondents indicated that two-thirds of the challenged materials were books; the remainder involved eight periodicals, two films, one encyclopedia, and one vi- deotape. The content of the challenged material varied widely, from diet, biography, and best-seller fiction to historical revisionism and homosexuality. Two principal types of content could be identified: (1) material that was sexually explicit or dealt with hu- man reproduction and sexual relations; and (2) material that was alleged to be blasphemous, or that dealt with the oc- cult, or that was otherwise in conflict with the religious affiliation of the parent insti- tution. Censorship Phenomenom 423 Sexuality materials constituted the larger of the two major types and included such titles as: The Act of Love, author un- known, The Intimate Marriage by Clive Bell, and Lying in Bed by Mary Howes. Two periodicals were reported: Playboy and Sports Illustrated (''swimsuit edi- tion"). The film, Not a Love Story, and vi- deotapes used in sex therapy courses also fell into this category. The materials in this category were alleged to be offensive, pro- vocative, or exploitive. Many also felt that these works were sexist and degrading to women and that users were not mature enough to deal with them responsibly. Among the second group of works were such titles as The Far Country by Paul Twit- chell, Satanic Bible by Anton S. LaVey, Jon- athan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times, and Wittenberg Door. According to one respondent, the latter is the Christian equivalent of National Lampoon; that is to say, it is a periodical that parodies Chris- tian doctrine and issues. Some of these types of materials were alleged to be dan- gerous or harmful to readers. A third group of material, much smaller than the two just discussed, could also be distinguished. This category included ma- terials that were considered to be racist or hate literature. Only two specific titles were reported by respondents: the elev- enth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Arthur R. Butz. A third incident involved a general complaint regarding LC subject headings concerning homosexuality. Other titles could not be placed r~adily into one of these categories. They covered a wide range of subjects, including sui- cide, poaching, dieting, crime, and the So- viet Union. TABLE3 TYPES OF CENSORSHIP INCIDENTS BY 1985 STUDENT POPULATION < 5,000 R~uests to Students* Remove 22 Relocate 5 Reclassify Total 27 *Libraries serving under 5,000 students. +Libraries serving 5,000 or more students. No. of Incidents > 5,000 Students+ 7 2 9 Total No. % 29 81 5 14 2 5 36 100 424 College & Research Libraries With regard to the source of complaints, every major academic constituency was represented. Students and members of the teaching staff initiated approximately 40 percent of the complaints, while ad- ministrative officials were involved in an- other 20 percent. More significant is the fact that, in 40 percent of all cases, a mem- ber of the library staff initiated or was one among several initiators. Of the 47 responding libraries, 29 (62 percent) said they had a written selection policy. Many librarians, however, quali- fied their answers somewhat with addi- tional phrases like "in part," "a general one, prioritizing types of acquisitions," ''sort of,'' ''but it needs updating,'' and "draft format." Of these 29 respondents with a written selection policy, only 7 reported that the policy provided a standard written proce- dure to be followed in the event of re- quests for removal, relocation, or reclassi- fication of library materials. Moreover, in only 10 cases did the written policy specify the library's position with regard to intel- lectual freedom. In spite of the frequent existence of writ- ten policies, and in spite of the majority view that a written policy is an effective tool to prevent censorship, respondents reported that the policies were ignored in two-thirds of the complaints received dur- ing the period under review in this study. Also noteworthy is the fact that in 3 of the cases reported, a written policy was actu- ally used to expedite censorship rather than to prevent it. ''In approximately 60 percent of the incidents, some kind of censorial action was taken: either removal, re- location, or reclassification in accord- ance with the complaint." With regard to the final disposition of the reported complaints, the data are not altogether encouraging. In approximately 60 percent of the incidents, some kind of censorial action was taken: either re- July 1989 moval, relocation, or reclassification in ac- cordance with the complaint. (In several of these incidents, the material was re- moved only temporarily and then re- placed when the conflict had subsided!) In only 40 percent of the incidents was the challenged material retained on the shelves intact. Comments by respondents added many further insights into the complexities of the censorship phenomenon in college and research libraries on the Canadian prairies: The only restriction I can think of in an aca- demic library would be in the case of revisionist literature. The rest are curriculum-based. One of the most insidious forms of censorship is hidden from the kinds of activities listed in this questionnaire. Many of the books we hold, for example, would not appear in other libraries because of a silent censorship applied to materi- als with an evangelical Christian perspective. They are just not purchased. Too bad you can- not measure such prejudicial tendencies. Some distributors place restrictions, for exam- ple, a number of criminology items may be viewed only with instructor's permission. We also abide by "restricted adult" ratings as ap- plied by the Alberta Board of Censors. I have had no requests to remove or reclassify but have had to go through long verbal de- fenses of some items I have purchased. Screening and censorship of materials takes place in the selection and buying process. Most materials which are considered inappropriate or objectionable (by library staff or faculty) are screened upon arrival and are not cataloged. (These items are returned, sold, or remain in the librarian's office; the latter items are not considered part of the collection.) Our selection policy is really quite general in that it states our major collection in the religious field consists of books in the . . . tradition but that books with a different persuasion are col- lected for reference purposes. In [our] inci- dents, it was understood that the materials re- moved went beyond reference to persuasion of something in conflict with our persuasion. Thus I would say it was effective in making the decision to remove. I think as little fuss as possible should be made; the material should simply be removed if it does not agree with the school's principles and stan- dards and beliefs. Since a college of our nature would not consider acquiring obscene or pornographic materials, the selection policy is quite adequate to assure that the collection contains only ideas-and we should have no fear of ideas. Obviously we can live without [a selection pol- icy]. It's handy to have something to point to but that doesn't mean, in my opinion, that you can't ever make exceptions." [Selection policies] work for library internal processing but are completely ineffective when the administration becomes involved, espe- cially when a donor is involved. . . . filling out this questionnaire has made me realize that we'd better revise the section on censorship in our acquisitions policy. We censored the Sports Illustrated issue on bath- ing suits because of the environment in the li- brary when the issue was left uncensored. The female staff felt exploited as fellows (mostly high school) used the magazine. We do restrict access to sexual or human reproduction materi- als because there have been problems with stu- dents in these areas who have accessed the ma- terial. Now upon request the material is provided but a request must be given-this has controlled the problem earlier identified by the counseling department. By and large we re- strict our book selection rather than censor and we make very sure of the grounds for a book if questions could arise. Once acquired we group sexual material separately, otherwise we take a hard line on censoring and argue for direct ac- cess in the stacks. CONCLUSIONS This study has revealed that censorship pressure is very much a reality for libraries at the postsecondary educational level. Three of ten respondents reported receiv- ing a request to remove, relocate, or re- classify some kind of library material. The data regarding the incidents them- selves are interesting for a number of rea- sons. First, censorship attempts were not confined to any particular format: books, periodicals, films, and videotapes were all targets of complaints. Second, the content of the challenged materials varied widely, although distinct categories did emerge. Diet, biography, best-seller fiction, the oc- cult, human reproduction, historical revi- sionism, homosexuality-all were the ob- ject of censorship attempts. This would seem to substantiate the assertion that no material is neutral for everybody: even the Censorship Phenomenom 425 most seemingly innocuous work has the potential to offend someone. With regard to the effectiveness of writ- ten selection policies in preventing cen- sorship, the data are not altogether en- couraging. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents stated that their library has a written selection policy. Very few of these policies, however, provided stan- dard procedures to deal specifically with a censorship attempt. This would seem to indicate that many of the respondents did not feel that censorship is a serious threat to the intellectual integrity of their collec- tions and that, should such incidents arise, ad hoc measures would be adequate to deal with them. 11ln only one of every three incidents was the written policy used to deal with the case. The problem is com- pounded by the frequent participa- tion of librarians and other members of the library staff in censorship at- tempts." Moreover, in only one of every three in- cidents was the written policy used to deal with the case. The problem is com- pounded by the frequent participation of librarians and other members of the li- brary staff in censorship attempts. Per- haps it is not surprising, therefore, to learn that in almost 60 percent of the inci- dents, some type of censorial action was taken. Although this study has revealed that far more censorship attempts have oc- curred in academic libraries-at least in the Canadian prairie provinces-than was previously assumed, the data regarding the effectiveness of written selection poli- cies in dealing with this censorship are in- conclusive. It seems that perceptions held by college and research librarians on the nature of this issue do not necessarily ac- cord with reality. While a majority of them believe that written selection policies would be effective in dealing with censor- ship, only a minority have actually estab- lished such standard procedures. Even 426 College & Research Libraries the existence of a standard procedure does not necessarily give the library an advan- tage, for, as noted, the procedure might not be used at all in dealing with a censor- ship attempt or, if used, its purpose might be subverted to expedite censorship rather than to prevent it. In at least one respect, this project is the first of its kind. To the best of our knowl- edge, no other comprehensive study has been undertaken of the censorship phe- nomenon in the libraries of postsecondary educational institutions in either Canada or the United States. Given the broad cul- tural similarities between the Canadian prairies and the American Midwest, the censorship phenomenon may turn out to be a common pattern that crosses political boundaries. July 1989 Although the academic institution in North America is widely perceived as an open forum for the free exchange of ideas, the study reported here demonstrates that this idealistic perception is at least parti- ally inaccurate and illusory. It is hoped that similar studies will be undertaken in the near future in many other geographic areas, nationally and internationally, so that our understanding of the issues is broadened, and so that senior administra- tive policymakers-and librarians-will be forewarned. Based on the present study, we believe that library censorship is a real- ity at the postsecondary level everywhere in the democratic world, in spite of hith- erto unquestioned assumptions to the contrary. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. John Robotham and Gerald Shields, Freedom of Access to Library Materials (New York: Neal- Schuman, 1981), p.19. 2. For the full technical report of this project, see Margaret Herring, "The Effectiveness of Written Selection Policies in Preventing Censorship in Academic Libraries in the Prairie Provinces Since 1980" (M. L.S. research project, University of Alberta, 1986). 3. David Jenkinson, "The Censorship Iceberg: The Results of a Survey of Challenges in School and Public Libraries." School Libraries in Canada 6:19-30 (Fall1985). Also published in Canadian Library Journal43:7-21 (Feb. 1986). 4. Keith Walker, "Censorship in Alberta Public Libraries: A Survey of Requests for Removal of Li- brary Materials" (M.L.S. research project, University of Alberta, 1984). Published as "Censorship Iceberg: Results of an Alberta Public Library Survey," by Alvin M. Schrader and Keith Walker, Canadian Library Journal43:91-95 (Apr. 1986). 5. Statistical analysis of the data reveals a moderately strong relationship between size of student pop- ulation served by the library and reported number of censorship incidents (Pearson correlation co- efficient = .31, significance = .019, valid cases = 44). APPENDIX A HISTORY OF CENSORSHIP INCIDENTS REPORTED BY COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LffiRARIANS IN THE CANADIAN PRAIRIE PROVINCES, 1980-1985 Written Procedure Method of Type of Type of Reason for Selection for Policy Handling Final Result Material Author Title Request Complainant Complaint Policy Complaints Used Incident of Complaint 1. Book Dominian, Jack Marital Break- Relocation Administrative Censorship Yes No No Request was acceded to Material relocated to library office. down official of Returned to shelf when complain- the institu- ant left the institution. tion 2. Periodical Wittenberg Door Removal Member of Blasphemous Yes No No Request was acceded to Subscription cancelled the teach- material ing staff 3. Book Unknown Uncut (a book Removal Member of Nudity in No No No Request was from a Material removed aboutcen- library someil- former librarian who sorship in staff lustrations removed the book after theCana- an argument with the dian film in- instructor dustry) 4. Book Davis, Adele Let's Eat Right Removal Community Dietsug- No No No Reference staff handled Verbal discussion with complainant; to Keep Fit member gested by the complaint no further action taken author is dangerous 5. Books No titles speci- Removal Member of Junk No No No Request from a former li- Verbal discussion with complainant; fied (best- library books- brarian, discussion no further action taken seller fiction) staff have no with staff place in a college collection n 6. Book Unknown Unknown Removal Member of Viewpoint No No No Unknown Verbal discussion with complainant; tl> =' teaching outdated no further action taken fll staff Q 7. Book Unknown The Act of Love Removal Student, Sexually ex- No No No Verbal discussion with Verbal discussion with complainant; ;! =-parent of plicitma- complainant and li- material removed temporarily, later ... student terial brary committee replaced "-.:::s 8. Book Unknown The Act of Love Removal Student Sexually ex- No No No Verbal discussion with Verbal discussion with complainant; ~ plicitma- complainant and li- material removed temporarily, later tl> terial brary committee replaced =' 9. Book Bell, Clive The Intimate Removal Student, Sexually ex- No No No Verbal discussion with Verbal discussion with complainant; Q Marriage member plicitma- complainant and li- material removed temporarily, later e tl> of library terial brary committee replaced =' committee Q 10. Book Homer, Tom Jonathan Loved Removal Member of Not in keep- No No No Librarian argued with Material removed e David: Homo- teaching ing with complainant; decided sexuality in staff institutional it was an improper Biblical Times doctrine; choice unscholarly ~ work "' APPENDIX A (Continued) ~ QO Written Procedure Method of Type of Type of Reason for Selection for Policy Handling Final Result Material Author Title Request Complainant Complaint Policy Complaints Used Incident of Complaint 11. Book Twitchell, Paul The Far Coun- Removal Student Material Yes Yes Yes Verbal discussion with complainant; (") Q try harmful no further action taken --to readers ~ because it (JQ ~ dealt with ~ the occult 12. Films No titles speci- Relocation Student Sensitive Yes Yes No Material relocated to ac- Material moved to reserve collection ~ fied (deal material- commodate faculty for use by a specific group of stu- (tl with issues shouldn't dents ~ in lawen- be avail- ~ forcement, able to =r' e .g., arson, general f""4 fraud, etc.) public .... a" 13. Book Benson, Ragnar Suroival Poach- Relocation Member of As above; Yes Yes No Material relocated to ac- Material moved to reserve collection lot ing teaching also con- commodate faculty for use by a specific group of stu- ~. staff cern that dents ~ the library (tl could face legal action as a provider ._ c of infor- -mation '< 14. Periodical Sports Illus- Removal Member of Caters to the Yes Yes Yes Material removed 1-1 \C trated (swim- teaching lust of QO suit edition staff students \C only) which dis- tracts from the inspirational andedu- cational value of themaga- zine 15. Book LaVey, Anton Satanic Bible Removal Student, Serves as Yes Yes Yes Material removed member temptation of library to explore staff, ad- the occult ministrative rather official of than the insti- serves as tution a refer- ence tool about Sa- tanism APPENDIX A (Continued) Written Procedure Method of Type of Type of Reason for Selection for Policy Handling Final Result Material Author Title Request Complainant Complaint Policy Complaints Used Incident of Complaint 16. Book Flumiani, Carlo HowtoReada Removal Member of Book hardly Yes Yes Yes Material removed Maria Book for Plea- teaching deals with sure and staff topic Profit suggested- contains "way out" ideas about a lot ofunre- Ia ted topics- basically a "ripoff" 17. Books No titles speci- Removal Administrative Possible use Yes No No Request discussed by No action taken fied (books official of of books representatives of li- on the oc- theinstitu- in occult brary committee with a cult) tion activities professor of counseling for his opinion 18. Periodical Wittenberg Door Removal Student No reason Yes No No Library committee re- No action taken specified jected request 19. Book Bowes, Mary Lying in Bed Removal Member of IDustrations Yes No No Explained verbally to Verbal discussion with complainant; (keep library offensive complainant that the no further action taken out of staff book had been ordered circula- for a particular course tion) and was needed both (') by students and fac- ~ ulty ; 20. Periodical Soviet Life Removal Member of Complainant Yes No No Explained to complainant Verbal discussion with complainant; Q ... (request library "sees red" that material in the li- no further action taken Ul =--to stop staff when she brary presents various .... buying) sees the points of view ~ word"So- ;q viet" ~ 21. Book Unknown Unknown Removal Student, Ours is a Yes No No Librarian simply exam- Material removed = member private ined the material and Q of teach- church withdrew it from the a ing staff, school shelves ~ = member and the Q of library material a staff, ad- inques- ministrative tion was official of not suit- institution able for ~ our school \C APPENDIX A (Continued) 11:1- ~ Written Procedure Method of Type of Type of Reason for Selection for Policy Handling Final Result Material Author Title Request Complainant Complaint Policy Complaints Used Incident of Complaint 22. Books No titles speci- Removal Student Inaccurate Yes No Yes Explanation of collecting Verbal discussion with complainant; n 0 fied (chil- portrayal policy of academic li- no further action taken --dren's ofwom- brary to provide access ~ books) en's to all types of material QQ ~ skills, and role of educators ~ abilities, to be aware of such and role materials in directing ~ in society studies ~ ftl 23. Reclassi- Member of Judgmental Yes No Yes Referred to cataloging Preference given to up-to-date subject. ~ fication library bias of tra- policy groups for sub- headings as authorized e: staff ditional sequent guidelines on n =-terms internal practice and r"" used in communication with '"'. subject LC regarding practice 0" lot headings !. 24. Periodical Sports lllus- Removal/ Student, Offensive Yes Yes Yes Pictures cut out, i.e., worst ones (this ~ trated (swim- relocation member material- is the only case of altering the en- ftl suit edition (cut of teach- provocative tity allowed in our policies) only) magazine ing staff, poses and up to member revealing remove of library non- ._ pages) staff, ad- clothing = ministrative ~ official of 1-l loC the insti- QO tution loC 25 . Periodical Wittenberg Door Removal Student, par- Offensive Yes Yes Yes Verbal discussion with complainant; ent,mem- material- no further action taken berof a Chris- teaching tian staff, equivalent member of of National hbrary, lAmpoon- administra- many tive official people ofinstitu- find it tion hard to laugh at themselves 26. Encyclopedia Encyclopaedia Removal/ Member of Negroes Yes No Yes Written letter of complaint came to di- Britannica relocation teaching section is rector; no further action taken (11th edi- staff blatantly tion) racist APPENDIX A (Continued) Written Procedure Method of Type of Type of Reason for Selection for Policy Handling Final Result Material Author Title Request Complainant Complaint Policy Complaints Used Incident of Complaint 27. Book Butz, Arthur R. The Hoax of the Reclassi- Community Revisionist Yes No Yes Oassification unchanged; subject Twentieth fication organization material heading modified Century (B'Nai should B'Rith) not be Anti- treated as Defamation history League) 28. Book Butz, Arthur R. The Hoax of the Removal Lawen- Material Yes No Yes Material removed initially but recov- Twentieth forcement prohibited ered on appeal Century official under Customs Act 29. Periodical Playboy Removal Student, Material is Yes No No Incident handled at area Material removed member sexist, un- library level of library academic, staff demeaning to women 30. Book Trudeau, Mar- No title speci- Request Unknown Material is Yes No Unknown Incident happened upon Area concerned instructed to pur- garet fied (herbi- not to trash by chance by director chase ography) purchase of libraries 31. Books No titles speci- Removal/ Student, Offensive Yes Yes Yes Material relocated to special collec- fied (books relocation parent, material- tions for sexual materials on human member much of reproduction of teach- our con- and sexual ing staff, stituency n relations) member and stu- ~ of library dents are = fll staff, ad- very sen- 0 ... ministrative sitiveto fll official of seeing ::::r .... institution this mate- "'tS rial in ;q print and ~ consider it = pornography 0 32. Film Not a Love Story Relocation/ Member of Our students Yes No No Discussion at librarians' Decision to restrict access to users 18 e restricted teaching are not meeting years and older in conformity with ~ = access staff mature the film's "R" rating 0 enough to e see the film with- out guided discussion ~ afterwards ~ 1-l APPENDIX A (Continued) ~ ~ N Written Procedure Method of Type of Type of Reason for Selection for Policy Handling Final Result Material Author Title Request Complainant Complaint Policy Complaints Used Incident of Complaint 33. Book Portwood, Doris Common Sense Removal Student Library Yes No No Student left material at Verbal discussion with complainant; n 0 Suicide should reference desk for li- no further action taken --not pro- brarian to make a deci- ~ QQ vide rna- sion ~ terial ~ which would as- ~ sist some- {I) one with ~ I» suicidal ... n tendencies ::r 34. Books No titles speci- Removal Member of Items are Yes No No Librarian pointed out to Verbal discussion with complainant; f""'4 fied (popular teaching trash and complainant that these no further action taken ..... 0'" religion) staff not suit- books are of use to stu- ... able to dents in psychology ~. support and sociology ~ course {I) 35. Videotapes No titles speci- Relocation/ Member of Students Yes No No Portions of videos shown Relocate/restrict access to those stu- fied (sex restricted teaching would use at librarians' meeting, dents who have professor's permis- therapy) access staff, them as followed by discussion sion member ''pornography "= of library shows" -staff since the '< full vari- ... loC ety of sex- QO ual activi- loC ties were shown 36. Periodical Playboy Removal Student, Inappropriate, Yes No No Discussion at librarians' Verbal discussion with complainant; member not meeting no further action taken of library course- staff related, in tatters within two weeks